Template talk:Banner holder

Configurable image icon
For this template to be useful, it needs to have a configurable image icon that fits the purpose for which the banner is being used, rather than a hard-coded image (currently, a puzzle piece: ). I've added a modified version to the sandbox that implements new params image and size in order to provide this functionality. (Multiple images might be even better, so we could roll up different types of banners, like translated page and copied from; but one thing at a time.) I'll add some test cases with some examples. Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing
You just nuked the section about which banners to collapse. The section could probably use some tweaks, but I think it ought to exist. How would you change it? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it was a bold edit, which is fine, but doesn't have consensus. It's arbitrary, and should be discussed first. My personal opinion is that it shouldn't exist at all, because other than items which have bespoke collapse banners (like WikiProject templates, and WikiEd course assignments) there's never been any consensus or common practice about this, and it's just instruction creep to include it. I see no reason a priori to give guidance about this, but if we do, we should point out those templates which do have their own collapse banners, and nothing else, which is what I tried to do. People can make up their own minds about the rest of them.  If we want to nuke the rest of it, and blank the section, I have no particular objection; the items listed there now can simply be moved to "See also", that would be sufficient. Mathglot (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion
I propose to leave out the collapsible section if there is no parameter defined. Examples below &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This would help me with something planned at WPBS. Alternatively, if anyone sees an issue with this, I could use none to deactivate the collapsible section. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections I may implement this later today &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Param '1' is required
Regarding edit warring in the doc in order to say 1 is optional, it is not; it is required. I understand why it is normally optional in many other templates and in other discussions such as this one at Template_talk:WikiProject banner shell, but that does not apply here.

Test 1 – broken without param 1

Test 2 – works with it

Test 3 – broken without param 1

Test 4 – works with it

Please either leave the doc the way it is, or alter the template so that it operates the way you think it ought to, but we cannot have them out of sync, with the doc saying one thing, and the template doing something different. Mathglot (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood. Please see examples below &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Test 1 – not broken without param 1

Test 3 – not broken without param 1


 * It doesn't matter how many working examples you can furnish; if there are broken ones, or even one, then it's broken. Supplying 1 (to my knowledge) fixes all broken cases. (If it doesn't, then the template is broken even worse than I thought.) Instructing the user to supply the param, means they will not get broken results. Therefore, that is what the doc page should say, at least until the template is adjusted to fix any broken cases so they no longer have to supply it. It doesn't matter if there are *some* cases which don't break without the param; the burden is not on the template user to understand which cases require the param and which do not; that is up to the template editors. In the meantime, we should err on the side of safety and clarity, and telling the user to always use the param never hurts, and (to the best of my knowledge) always fixes any potential problems, so that is what we should do. Just fix the code so the two failing cases no longer fail, and I won't object to your /doc change. Mathglot (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You still don't understand. The  is never required. Your failing examples are missing the   which is definitely required &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)